linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6] mm: introduce page->dma_pinned_flags,

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a9f1df2f-da9d-bf7b-b977-d3d3ca710776@nvidia.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Oct 2018 18:48:23 -0700
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
CC:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] mm: introduce page->dma_pinned_flags, _count

On 10/16/18 1:51 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Sun 14-10-18 10:01:24, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 12:34:12AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>>> On 10/12/18 8:55 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 11:00:12PM -0700, john.hubbard@...il.com wrote:
>>>>> From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
>>> [...]
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/mm_types.h b/include/linux/mm_types.h
>>>>> index 5ed8f6292a53..017ab82e36ca 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/linux/mm_types.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/mm_types.h
>>>>> @@ -78,12 +78,22 @@ struct page {
>>>>>  	 */
>>>>>  	union {
>>>>>  		struct {	/* Page cache and anonymous pages */
>>>>> -			/**
>>>>> -			 * @lru: Pageout list, eg. active_list protected by
>>>>> -			 * zone_lru_lock.  Sometimes used as a generic list
>>>>> -			 * by the page owner.
>>>>> -			 */
>>>>> -			struct list_head lru;
>>>>> +			union {
>>>>> +				/**
>>>>> +				 * @lru: Pageout list, eg. active_list protected
>>>>> +				 * by zone_lru_lock.  Sometimes used as a
>>>>> +				 * generic list by the page owner.
>>>>> +				 */
>>>>> +				struct list_head lru;
>>>>> +				/* Used by get_user_pages*(). Pages may not be
>>>>> +				 * on an LRU while these dma_pinned_* fields
>>>>> +				 * are in use.
>>>>> +				 */
>>>>> +				struct {
>>>>> +					unsigned long dma_pinned_flags;
>>>>> +					atomic_t      dma_pinned_count;
>>>>> +				};
>>>>> +			};
>>>>
>>>> Isn't this broken for mapped file-backed pages? i.e. they may be
>>>> passed as the user buffer to read/write direct IO and so the pages
>>>> passed to gup will be on the active/inactive LRUs. hence I can't see
>>>> how you can have dual use of the LRU list head like this....
>>>>
>>>> What am I missing here?
>>>
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>> In patch 6/6, pin_page_for_dma(), which is called at the end of get_user_pages(),
>>> unceremoniously rips the pages out of the LRU, as a prerequisite to using
>>> either of the page->dma_pinned_* fields. 
>>
>> How is that safe? If you've ripped the page out of the LRU, it's no
>> longer being tracked by the page cache aging and reclaim algorithms.
>> Patch 6 doesn't appear to put these pages back in the LRU, either,
>> so it looks to me like this just dumps them on the ground after the
>> gup reference is dropped.  How do we reclaim these page cache pages
>> when there is memory pressure if they aren't in the LRU?
> 
> Yeah, that's a bug in patch 6/6 (possibly in ClearPageDmaPinned). It should
> return the page to the LRU from put_user_page().
> 

Yes. Ugh, the LRU handling in this series is definitely not all there yet:
probably need to track (in the page->dma_pinned_flags) which LRU (if any) each 
page was taken from. 

It's hard to say exactly what the active/inactive/unevictable list should
be when DMA is done and put_user_page*() is called, because we don't know
if some device read, wrote, or ignored any of those pages. Although if 
put_user_pages_dirty() is called, that's an argument for "active", at least.

And maybe this will all be pointless if the DIRECT_IO performance test, that
Christoph requested, shows that LRU operations are too expensive here, anyway.
I wonder if we should just limit this to 64-bit arches and find a real
page flag...well, let's see what the testing shows first I suppose.

-- 
thanks,
John Hubbard
NVIDIA